V22 Osprey
Posts: 1593
Joined: 4/8/2008
From: Corona, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: warishere
quote:
ORIGINAL: V22 Osprey
quote:
ORIGINAL: Joe 98
Tactical: You give orders to a team. The team might consist of 1 man, 2 men or a squad.
Operational: Each unit is platoon, or company, or battalion.
Strategic: Each unit is Regiment or division in size
Grand Strategy: Each unit is division or greater
No
Tactical: Any where from the individual man up to the platoon level.
Operational: Battalion size to Divisions
Grand Strategy: Armies, Corps, Army Groups
I personally prefer Tactical and Operational, leaning toward Operational. I don't like tactical games as much because if the scenario gets too large it becomes tedious to play. I also like the more overview perspective of operational. Grand Strategy I just don't like at all.
War in the Pacific is special case, however. It's a grand strategy game in the sense that you worry about production, logistics, etc. BUT at the same time you are controlling individual squads, planes, and ships. It also still uses hexes and not "territories" as in most grand strategy games.(which is why I don't like them)
Yeah, I don't care to much for the territory style of gaming either like World At War. Even though WaW is a good game the territories take away from operational movement/planning a lot. Hexes are way better, hexes make me feel like I'm playing chess while territories feels like playing monopoly. But one thing I hate about the hexes is that hexed based maps are so ugly. 
I just cringe when I look at a hex-based map especially when it has the nato symbols (or whatever they're called) representing your army. I just hate the way it looks.... I like 3D models a lot more. But I'm slowly finding out that most wargamers prefer the nato symbols with the counters. However, I think this is one reason why wargames are not as mainstream as other genres are. They just don't look good and the hexes make it look very difficult to learn. But there are some hexed based games that are really easy to learn like Strategic Command 2 and Commander- Europe At War. I like SC2 a lot.
I haven't played WITP yet. So it actually combines TaC,Op and GS alltogether? I am looking for a game like this, its just really hard to find one that combines it all on one game map. I know the Total War games combine it fairly well but the tactical battles are played on a 3D map. So, its not exactly like combining all 3 elements of war into one game. I'll have to check out WITP, sounds like a great game. Do you also have to control supply lines in WITP?
Hex based maps are only ugly if the developer makes it that way. Admiral's edition, GG's WitE, JT's Battleground Series and SSG titles come to mind for good hex based maps. I would say it's actually easier to learn with hexes. Hexes make it clearly defined where a unit can and cannot go and I don't even think the average person in the Mainstream would play GG's War in the East whether it used 3D models or not.
I personally prefer the counters, they just overall look better and less messy. I find the NATO Counters more functional and it also feels more like I'm a commander looking at an actual battle map.(Commanders in real life use NATO symbols on maps so it feels more realistic) However, at the tactical scale NATO symbols begin to break down in regard to vehicles. A Panzer IV or a Panzer VI will have the same looking counter, so at a glance sprites or figures are preferable at that scale.
War in the Pacific takes elements from all scales, yes. Logistics are a huge part of the game. Don't worry, you will have plenty dealing with supply lines.
< Message edited by V22 Osprey -- 1/13/2011 11:41:27 PM >
_____________________________
  Art by rogueusmc.
|
Printable Version
What do you prefer, Operational, Tactical or Grand Stra... - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread